Usually the first thing i do after i have a basic chord structure is to try to figure out what key my song reflects. In the above example i would say the key is C. I do recognize that B7 isnt in the key of C but, i still think the over all key seems to be C, am i wrong?

From this point to write leads/filler licks and solos i try to visualize all the notes in the key of the song on the fret board. I also try to group the notes into box pattern scales to help me not get lost and to navigate the fret board easier.

If the Dm was playing for a measure i would play with the D dorian mode in mind and then branch out to the other minor modes of the key (E phrygian , A aeolian). To me those seem to fit the most due to the fact they reflect a minor tone. But, shouldn't any of the modes sounds good as long as they are in the key, C ionian for example? For now i want to play things that are in the key, i want to know all the rules before i go and break them all. Having said that could i also play a lick in the D aeolian mode to add more diversity.

This is sort of my approach to writing leads and solos is it a healthy one?

If something is in a major or minor key, you don't use modes at all. So say your song is in C major, this means all scales that you use over it are either C major or some form of C major with extra accidentals.

You've made some connection that "modes" are in the "key" of C major, this is a half truth. They're scales which share the same notes, which is true. But to assume they are different in this context is not.

Consider C major scale's notes;

CDEFGAB

Ok, but what happens if I start on the A note? Nothing if the key is C major. It's simply the C major scale starting on an A note.

Huh? But look at A aoelian?

ABCDEFG

Isn't that different?

Well yeah, it starts on a different note. But the scale doesn't determine where a chord progression resolves to. The notes you use over a progression are heard in relation to the key of the song, not the other way around.

Wait, is this why if I play the A aoelian over my C major progression it sounds the same as if I used C major over it?

You're overthinking it. Forget the scales and just think about how the notes relate to the chord tones. Thinking Dorian, Phrygian etc. will give you a decent solo and a massive headache.

You're right, but I wouldn't say "forget the scales." You should at least know the parent scale. Beyond that, just account for the accidentals in the chords that are out of key. Over the B7 just make sure you play D#s and F#s instead of D naturals and F naturals, as they will clash.

Alan's got it ^

Only play what you hear. If you don’t hear anything, don’t play anything.-Chick Corea

The verse is C. The rest could be C too but I can hear it resolving to Em also. Depends on context and how you play it really.

Edit: This pretty much says the same thing that Alan said.

I don't see a point in thinking about it like that. If you're going to be using the modes that are related to the parent scale you'll just be over thinking big time. D Dorian over the Dm, G Mixolydian over the G, etc. is just using the C major scale as long as it's resolving to C. The only time it can make a difference is if you're using a mode in a tonal setting that doesn't have the same notes (ex: D Aeolian in C major) but even so, I'd still consider it a major scale with accidentals.D Dorian resolves to D, not C. E Phrygian resolves to E and only E. It shares notes with C major but that's the extent of their relation, like how A minor and C major are related. A minor and C major have the same notes but they are clearly different and modes work the same way.The modes exist and have different names from a major scale because they are different entities.

Sure you can think of it that way, but honestly, it will just be making it a harder and longer process for similar results.

(PS: if you make those sections resolve to Em like they did when I played it, you could use E Phrygian over them)

Usually the first thing i do after i have a basic chord structure is to try to figure out what key my song reflects. In the above example i would say the key is C. I do recognize that B7 isnt in the key of C but, i still think the over all key seems to be C, am i wrong?

From this point to write leads/filler licks and solos i try to visualize all the notes in the key of the song on the fret board. I also try to group the notes into box pattern scales to help me not get lost and to navigate the fret board easier.

If the Dm was playing for a measure i would play with the D dorian mode in mind and then branch out to the other minor modes of the key (E phrygian , A aeolian). To me those seem to fit the most due to the fact they reflect a minor tone. But, shouldn't any of the modes sounds good as long as they are in the key, C ionian for example? For now i want to play things that are in the key, i want to know all the rules before i go and break them all. Having said that could i also play a lick in the D aeolian mode to add more diversity.

This is sort of my approach to writing leads and solos is it a healthy one?

So this is REALLY how hendrix died....

Quote by BlitzkriegAir

1. Get drunk2. play pentatonic scales fast 3. throw in some divebombs and pinch harmonics4. Get killed onstage5. become legendary guitarist instantaneously

Is the main idea that If a song in the key of C major then it is irrelevant to think about in terms of the related modes? I knew the notes were the same but i felt that thinking about in terms of the modes kind of lead to a different feel while still playing the same notes.

In my song example above if i'm playing the verse and i play a solo i should think about it in the terms of a solo in "C major" because C major is the resolving note. Is playing the modes sort of counter intuitive because its sort of trying to change the resolving center, it;s competing against the key?

Have you tried soloing in the key of C major over those chords to see what happens?

CEGDBFAC

Don't start on the root of the chord at the beginning of each bar unless you want to sound like a bassline, and don't resolve into the root of the chord too much either, as it's corny and it will stall you instead of pushing you through the changes.

Use the 3rd and 7ths of the chord and connect to the 3rd and 7th. You can use the 5th as well but it's more neutral.

Do whatever you want between those notes with the notes in cmajor and it will sound good.

Is the main idea that If a song in the key of C major then it is irrelevant to think about in terms of the related modes? I knew the notes were the same but i felt that thinking about in terms of the modes kind of lead to a different feel while still playing the same notes.

Same notes in same key will reach the same outcome. Now if you want to do something different over the chords in the progression, consider emphasising chord tones whilst still keeping in the key of C major.

Quote by daylife

In my song example above if i'm playing the verse and i play a solo i should think about it in the terms of a solo in "C major" because C major is the resolving note. Is playing the modes sort of counter intuitive because its sort of trying to change the resolving center, it;s competing against the key?

Because you're playing the same notes as the C major scale, you're not actually competing against the key at all - you're just playing the C major scale. Thinking about modes is counter-intuitive because firstly the song is not modal, so you can't play modes, and secondly, because you are just playing the C major scale, and nothing more.

When playing in the context of the song, it is the chords which determine where the song resolves to - not the scale that you play over the top of them. No matter how hard you try, it will ALWAYS resolve to C major with the chords you have.

where does it state in the rule of music that if a song is not "modal" as such you cannot play modes?

what do you tell someone if they want to solo over a ii-V-I chord progression?

Yeah use the major scale for all of the chords and you will be fine - bit ambiguous dont you think? It's a lot easier and less hassle free to explain to someone that (in the key of C) you can play D Dorian, G mixolydian and C Ionian, (one for each chord)

BUT I CAN'T BECAUSE IT IS ALL C MAJOR right? True, but its less about the mode itself and more about the relationship with the harmony, for instance over an Aminor chord (in C) you could play A Aeolian and play around with the F, as it is the vi of the scale. Over an Fmajor chord, emphasizing the IV around the chord tones for instance.

Just put in my 10 cents, and now I will be destroyed by the music police

Quote by BlitzkriegAir

1. Get drunk2. play pentatonic scales fast 3. throw in some divebombs and pinch harmonics4. Get killed onstage5. become legendary guitarist instantaneously

what do you tell someone if they want to solo over a ii-V-I chord progression?

Yeah use the major scale for all of the chords and you will be fine - bit ambiguous dont you think? It's a lot easier and less hassle free to explain to someone that (in the key of C) you can play D Dorian, G mixolydian and C Ionian, (one for each chord)

It's a waste of time, it's great for analysis and to get a general idea but it's a waste of time and you know it if you have played jazz. It doesn't give you any information, and it limits you from modulations, substitutions, chromaticisms; on top of not being practical whatsover because you have extra steps to think while you are playing.

Academics adapted that to regular jazz from modal jazz because it sells and it's easy to pack into a "learn jazz quick" package.

But yeah you are right in what you're trying to say, I wont arrest you tonight

It's a waste of time, it's great for analysis and to get a general idea but it's a waste of time and you know it if you have played jazz. It doesn't give you any information, and it limits you from modulations, substitutions, chromaticisms; on top of not being practical whatsover because you have extra steps to think while you are playing.

Academics adapted that to regular jazz from modal jazz because it sells and it's easy to pack into a "learn jazz quick" package.

But yeah you are right in what you're trying to say, I wont arrest you tonight

yeah in the long run its ridiculous to think of every chord as an island, as they say, but its just good to grasp on chord tone movement, which notes sound the best over which chord etc. etc. for someone who is starting out. In Jazz I think (like in Giant Steps) its more important just to make sure you are still in the right key

Quote by BlitzkriegAir

1. Get drunk2. play pentatonic scales fast 3. throw in some divebombs and pinch harmonics4. Get killed onstage5. become legendary guitarist instantaneously

where does it state in the rule of music that if a song is not "modal" as such you cannot play modes?

what do you tell someone if they want to solo over a ii-V-I chord progression?

Yeah use the major scale for all of the chords and you will be fine - bit ambiguous dont you think? It's a lot easier and less hassle free to explain to someone that (in the key of C) you can play D Dorian, G mixolydian and C Ionian, (one for each chord)

BUT I CAN'T BECAUSE IT IS ALL C MAJOR right? True, but its less about the mode itself and more about the relationship with the harmony, for instance over an Aminor chord (in C) you could play A Aeolian and play around with the F, as it is the vi of the scale. Over an Fmajor chord, emphasizing the IV around the chord tones for instance.

Just put in my 10 cents, and now I will be destroyed by the music police

I don't really understand why stating 3 scales apply when saying just one will have the same function. If you wish to emphasise chords, emphasise chord tones - there's no need to think of it as a separate scale if you're aware how the chords are connected to the parent/key's scale.

I don't really understand why stating 3 scales apply when saying just one will have the same function. If you wish to emphasise chords, emphasise chord tones - there's no need to think of it as a separate scale if you're aware how the chords are connected to the parent/key's scale.

In essence yes, but I like to think of the modes, in a contemporary / jazz sense as ways to sort of use more than just chord tones to my advantage,

for instance in C, playing an F over the Emin7 chord and playing around with that note in relation to the root of the chord and the b3 gives a phrygian quality while simply emphasizing chord tones doesn't give you the same effect. Or with a Dmin7 chord (still in C) and jumping between chord tones and that natural 6 would give you the dorian sound.

I know you shouldn't think of each chord as an individual entity, but in this sense, it helps you break out a whole lot more than just using chord tones.

Quote by BlitzkriegAir

1. Get drunk2. play pentatonic scales fast 3. throw in some divebombs and pinch harmonics4. Get killed onstage5. become legendary guitarist instantaneously

for instance in C, playing an F over the Emin7 chord and playing around with that note in relation to the root of the chord and the b3 gives a phrygian quality while simply emphasizing chord tones doesn't give you the same effect. Or with a Dmin7 chord (still in C) and jumping between chord tones and that natural 6 would give you the dorian sound.

But you could equally say that you are creating tension over the E min 7 chord by employing the F note over it, which is begging to go to either the E or G note. I believe this is just a use of tension and release (as many people do), and not trying to imitate the sound of a mode.

In any case you couldn't really achieve that modal sound you're going for, because in this example the tonic/key is still C major, and your scale will always sound like the C major scale, rather than E phyrgian.

where does it state in the rule of music that if a song is not "modal" as such you cannot play modes?

what do you tell someone if they want to solo over a ii-V-I chord progression?

Yeah use the major scale for all of the chords and you will be fine - bit ambiguous dont you think? It's a lot easier and less hassle free to explain to someone that (in the key of C) you can play D Dorian, G mixolydian and C Ionian, (one for each chord)

It's not easier at all, and neither is it correct either - all you're doing is needlessly complicating matters in an attempt to sound clever.

Modes are not the holy grail and the obsession some guitarists have with trying to crowbar them at every opportunity is laughable. Just because you can see a fragment of a pattern, or because somebody "started playing" on a certain note doesn't suddenly make modal theory applicable.

Usually the first thing i do after i have a basic chord structure is to try to figure out what key my song reflects. In the above example i would say the key is C. I do recognize that B7 isnt in the key of C but, i still think the over all key seems to be C, am i wrong?

From this point to write leads/filler licks and solos i try to visualize all the notes in the key of the song on the fret board. I also try to group the notes into box pattern scales to help me not get lost and to navigate the fret board easier.

If the Dm was playing for a measure i would play with the D dorian mode in mind and then branch out to the other minor modes of the key (E phrygian , A aeolian). To me those seem to fit the most due to the fact they reflect a minor tone. But, shouldn't any of the modes sounds good as long as they are in the key, C ionian for example? For now i want to play things that are in the key, i want to know all the rules before i go and break them all. Having said that could i also play a lick in the D aeolian mode to add more diversity.

This is sort of my approach to writing leads and solos is it a healthy one?

Verse is in C

B7 marks a key change to Em - though you use an Em, its tonally going to fit, a change to E. It's a V-i - (Harmonic) Minor move, ala Guns and Roses SCOM.

If the bridge sustained over F to Em , back and forth, regardless where you started, if it cycled those chords for a while, you'd have a Phrygian mode that fit nicely and resolved to E, until a G or return to C was made.

When i wrote my message i felt like i had a fairly good grasp on modes and what they were and how to use them. But now its seems that modes are a pretty polarizing point and confusing by how differently people view them and use them. In reading the replies to this thread i was motivated to look at past threads on modes.

Why is there so many different opinions on what modes are and aren't? Isn't music theory like math with fairly concrete rules? Im not going to ask for any explanation of them but is there a good website, book, thread or something that gives a good explanation (that the experienced musicians agree with) and that give practical uses of modes.

the word mode always causes a thread to errupt into non-neccesary dialogoue about 'not really using modes'what you are doing is 'not really using modes'. as you are playing tonal music, which is, by definition non-modal. However, you are using chord scale (pitch collections that fit over chords that happen to share the same spelling as modes so are called modes) and using them correctly. Whether or not its the most effective approach is up to you, but it is a main-stream approach to teaching improvisation and has proven effective. and any m7 chord that is not the relative minor can take dorian (playing E dorian instead of E phrygian for example) quite safely, but on the iii chord phrygian can work. TO answer this question with soley "th333zzzz r n0t modezzz" is pedegocially irresponsible and does not help you, but (ive found after several educational debates on this very forum) you do need to understand that you are not making modal music just using the modes as a pitch collection to employ over a chord (though calling it a mode in this context as in 'the dorian mode' is much more succint and requires less thought--which is generally the best way to go with theory--- then saying 'the C major scale from D to D' even though the later is actually what your doing).

When i wrote my message i felt like i had a fairly good grasp on modes and what they were and how to use them. But now its seems that modes are a pretty polarizing point and confusing by how differently people view them and use them. In reading the replies to this thread i was motivated to look at past threads on modes.

Why is there so many different opinions on what modes are and aren't? Isn't music theory like math with fairly concrete rules? Im not going to ask for any explanation of them but is there a good website, book, thread or something that gives a good explanation (that the experienced musicians agree with) and that give practical uses of modes.

I went to site above but it doesn't seem to chime with what i've read here and in other threads.

Because most of the theorists on this forum are so unbelievably hardcore about semantics that their incredibly closed minds can't see past other peoples points of view, and its definitely something the music field doesn't need - if anything everyone should be open minded and willing to try new approaches - idealistically.

Its pretty much Jazz/Rock VS Classical trained scholars

All the stuff I know about modes has been taught to me by heaps of teachers and Uni lecturers who have all studied jazz as a major at university, while those from a classical strain see modes as another genre of music as it were, that modes in that sense can only be used in modal music.

Just remember, it all comes down to how you view it, how you take it in, how you can apply it practically (very important) and how it makes sense to YOU - if you can explain your approach to other people, then you truly understand music.

Quote by BlitzkriegAir

1. Get drunk2. play pentatonic scales fast 3. throw in some divebombs and pinch harmonics4. Get killed onstage5. become legendary guitarist instantaneously

When i wrote my message i felt like i had a fairly good grasp on modes and what they were and how to use them. But now its seems that modes are a pretty polarizing point and confusing by how differently people view them and use them. In reading the replies to this thread i was motivated to look at past threads on modes.

Why is there so many different opinions on what modes are and aren't? Isn't music theory like math with fairly concrete rules? Im not going to ask for any explanation of them but is there a good website, book, thread or something that gives a good explanation (that the experienced musicians agree with) and that give practical uses of modes.

The reason you hear so many different opinions on modes is because of many reasons, including the following:

1) They are often misunderstood (including oversimplification and overcomplication).2) There is a discordance/ambiguity of terminology. Modes vs. scales, modes vs. keys, and modal harmony vs. tonal harmony are a few topics that are debated over (particularly here).3) There is also a clash of opinions concerning ancient modal usage (pre-Baroque era) vs. modern modal usage, including the "rules" that are associated with each.4) Going off of number 2, some view modes as completely interchangeable with scales, where some make a distinction according to the tonality vs. modality.

Those are a view reasons. As you can tell, people may have different interpretations of the "rules" and terminology. So no, theory is not necessarily concrete. Obviously some things are wrong and some are right, but most things fall into the category of "can be argued either way." Of course, this doesn't mean both ways are of equal merit, it just means that people can interpret things differently.

Only play what you hear. If you don’t hear anything, don’t play anything.-Chick Corea

no such thing, and chord-scale theory existed seperatly of Berklee when jazz musicians began using modes as the basis for their compositions, and it was then applied to tonal compositions as a means of improvising over the changes.

The reason people on this forum (and other places) steer beginners away from modes is because they provide more confusion than clarity to beginners, are not really useful in tonic harmony, and are just ridiculously overhyped as being "the secret" to "unlocking your guitar playing" or some drivel.

no such thing, and chord-scale theory existed seperatly of Berklee when jazz musicians began using modes as the basis for their compositions, and it was then applied to tonal compositions as a means of improvising over the changes.

The reason people on this forum (and other places) steer beginners away from modes is because they provide more confusion than clarity to beginners, are not really useful in tonic harmony, and are just ridiculously overhyped as being "the secret" to "unlocking your guitar playing" or some drivel.

No they are not. but, when you learn to play piano, any good teacher will teach you standard hannon fingerings. You could probably band out mary had a little lamb with your big toe, but you learn the correct fingerings. Improvisation is just like playing an instrument, if you begin thinking of chord scales (which does not mean you have to change what your doing if your just thinking of a C major scale) with easy music and get them down, when you start playing falling grace and dolphin dance and inner urge it'l be MUCH easier, as you'll already have them down and not have to learn about chord scales, while also memorizing odd harmonic centers, forms and then applying said chord scales to very difficult fingerings (the same way you don't wait until your playing Claire de Lune to learn proper fingerings).

Oh you got lots to learn...

Yes I do? But It is a fact that modes came into jazz (and pop music and popularity in general) through the work of the likes of miles, coltrane, bill evans and george russel. I'd be suprised if a tiny, no-name school of music in boston (which is what berklee was in the late fifties and early sixties) came up with concept and taught it to musicians in New York who never learned it. I'd be even more suprised if said school then became a mamoth factory for jazz musicians and never received credit for the creation of modal jazz (even though George Russel, who laid the groundwork with his Lydian Chromatic theory spent years teaching literally right down the street).

Modal Harmony came from Debussy, Ravel and the rest of the Impressionists in the 19ths Century.

That said it didn't come into jazz until George Russell and Miles, but early on that was pretty simplistic music as they were still messing around with it. Inner Urge and Dolphin Dance are pretty tame modal vampy tunes. I'm talking about Wayne Shorter tunes and Herbie's more complex stuff and reharmonizations . If you play those tunes with chordscales you'd be missing the point of the whole tune.

Going to the chordscale theory, no one in jazz ever played with scales until the mode thing started. But the chordscale system devised for straight jazz didn't come around until much much later on when schools like Berklee adapted the modal view into everything because it was a more general way to teach. It was a concept modified by academicians look for an easy way to teach. Jazz has always been centered around chords. No one until much much later ever played straight jazz with scales, to the point that scales have always been frowned upon.

It's a terrible system, like I said in my early post, it doesn't provide any information other than the direct chordscale of the chord. It doesn't show you the possible subs, reharmonizations, chormaticisms, or for that matter anything other than the 7 tensions of a chord. And to think that you have to change it up mentally for every single chord mentally, you'd be wasting too much time thinking instead of playing.

You could say George Russell came up with it, but if you'd be misinterpreting him if all you got from the LCC was chordscales. That was just the ground base of his vertical theory.

If you want a good lesson in modal harmony transcribe some of Filles de Kilimanjaro.

A LOT of good points being made in this thread. The reasons for modes, and their misunderstandings, are well covered, and for once I actually read something by Tominator that I totally agreed with! (should I be concerned?)

I think the opinion of what modes are or arent in this forum, are drastically different from what books and guitar magazines and so on might espouse. There are those who think "real harm" comes from not understanding everything exactly as "proper" as they feel it should be. But I think its overblown.

Proper understanding may not be complete but Ive yet to see someone pulled from a gig, dragged out back and shot, because they called their scale in a ii V I a "Dorian". The point is, it's Major, not Dorian, but if you played Dorian and called it Dorian, you wouldn't die from it. The sky will not fall on you, and it's not the equivalent of dividing by zero.

I think a lot of the disagreements about modes actually come from three opposing opinions, which constantly clash.

These are;

1. Play the major/minor scale over a major/minor key and it will only be a minor/major scale over the chord which relates to the root.

Eg for 1; Key of A minor. The A minor scale is A minor (or aeolian) only when played over the A minor chord. When you play a different chord, say C major, your scale is now the C ionian. The scale changes every time you change a chord, irrespective of the notes always being the same. If a D chord was played in the progression, irrespective of whether it was minor or major, the scale played over it would be D locrian.

2. You can use modes over the progression as you wish, but it becomes more relevant when a chord comes up that is foreign to the key.

Eg for 2. Key of A minor. You can choose minor, phyrigan or dorian over this progression as you wish, but if a chord such as D major is in the progression, it's best to use A dorian over this.

3. Modes technically can only be played in modal contexts. Therefore if the key is major or minor, you will always be using major or minor. Any alterations to this scale are merely accidentals.

Eg for 3; Key of A minor, scale is A minor. When a C major chord is played, the scale is still A minor, irrespective of the chord played underneath it. Even if a chord foreign to the key, say D major is introduced to the mix, and you can play the major 6th over this chord, but this is just an accidental, not changing the nature of the scale, which is still A minor.

I personally have no problem with the latter two when the "foreign" chords are employed in a progression. But the first, it seems to be constructed merely to "show off" or just as a result of bad advice (and there's a lot of it out there).

However, when users professing the second chord-scale type approach talk with the first, they'll both come to the same end result with their reasoning for the choice. The "chord is an island" approach. However there is a large difference between the two. The people using the second opinion will adjust their notes as the chord structure calls, deviating from the major/minor scale, whilst the first will still keep the same notes and just call it a different name.

I think there's still a middle ground to be found between the second and third views on the subject. I can see that the chord-scale approach is extremely useful for genres such as jazz, which constantly have progressions that don't technically fit into the straight minor and major progressions which are all over pop and rock music. I can also see that for pop/rock music, it can be redundant to think of each chord as an island, because the majority of the time you're still playing the same notes as the major or minor. Both have their advantages depending on the context of the songs.

I think there's still a middle ground to be found between the second and third views on the subject. I can see that the chord-scale approach is extremely useful for genres such as jazz, which constantly have progressions that don't technically fit into the straight minor and major progressions which are all over pop and rock music. I can also see that for pop/rock music, it can be redundant to think of each chord as an island, because the majority of the time you're still playing the same notes as the major or minor. Both have their advantages depending on the context of the songs.

That's my rant for today.

I completely agree, I mean, the wrong thing to do would be when using modes (as such) on individual chords would be to tell people you are playing modally, or playing a modal piece.

Quote by BlitzkriegAir

1. Get drunk2. play pentatonic scales fast 3. throw in some divebombs and pinch harmonics4. Get killed onstage5. become legendary guitarist instantaneously

Amusingly I was having a practice the other night on a new song and the singer said "hey can you play this scale over the break?" and sung the phrygian scale. "Oh phrygian?" I ask. She shrugs.

Now this bridge was a B minor vamp, in a song that was already in B minor. I was about to go "oh I'm not sure whether it's technically phrygian or whether it's a B minor with accidentals", but then realised that nobody cared and played the damn scale anyway.

However, when users professing the second chord-scale type approach talk with the first, they'll both come to the same end result with their reasoning for the choice. The "chord is an island" approach. However there is a large difference between the two. The people using the second opinion will adjust their notes as the chord structure calls, deviating from the major/minor scale, whilst the first will still keep the same notes and just call it a different name.

I have to amend this paragraph.

The biggest difference is that people who possess the first opinion change the tonic of their scale every chord, whilst chord-scale users will keep the same tonic as the key.

So in the key of A minor over a D major chord, the first will say D locrian, whilst the second would say A dorian.